Elites…elitism….Elitism at times can seem to me being in a “bar” and drinking a shot of Crown Royal. That’s not a typical every day shot. That’s a shot when someone’s gone over to the other side at a wake. And, the last time I checked a boilermaker was a shot in the beer or a shot chased by a beer or the beer slammed down and then the shot. I would be an elite walking in the VFW and wanting Bombay Sapphire when I know darn well the best might be Beefeaters regular I worry about the glass. I don’t drink coffee either. I would be the one who always walks in the diner and asks for “juice”. So am I elite? And, I had a boss once (I’ve had some lousy hateful bosses) that called me a bold faced liar when I told him my family heritage — Wales (after he asked) — If some of you out there know history you know that the slave trade went through Wales, Liverpool, etc. and some families had freedom for centuries when they hit the Colonies. Mr. Obama has proved they’re many interracial families out here — he’s only two years younger than I. Elite? My husband and I would fight for the first 3 years of our knowing each other because I still have a slight “British” tone and my tongue cuts like a Brit. It took a joke on Russell Simmons Def Jam for him to finally understand that I was not being Elistist to him. It’s just generational tone, etiquette, etc. Now, he wonders why he didn’t get it. I feel in my soul that the word “elite” has brought me many tears over the years because all I know is just how to be me. Never mean, or bitter. Wanting the best for all, yet somehow people can’t seem to believe that people truly can be that geniune and true of heart. We can be. Read Thomas Paine and remember he died not a rich man. Think of Harriet Tubman. And no matter where we come down on the subject you have to admit Valerie Plame Wilson had guts. Elitism can be a kind of warmth if we choose to view the word that way, not vanity. Not jealousy. Should Mrs. Clinton stop wearing her jewels? She’s wearing some nice understated rocks. How would a Seventh Day Adventist feel? We should be happy for her (although I wonder about that color pink —ugh - John Edwards may have been right)..We’re all elite in our own special way, let’s just look at it as a special talent and not as a curse to snarl at, I guess. I’ve been beat up physically and mentally too much over the years over nothing for too long.

I’m hate my posts to be repetitious … but I admit that I relish the irony that it is one of he men posting on this website who is most passionate about the need to elect a woman president for the first time in our history. I believe that Obama has the potential to be a great president, but I fear that his potential for being Swiftboated is far greater than Hillary’s; if the campaign of a war hero like Kerry could be sunk so easily, I fear Barak’s is the Titanic streaming full speed ahead for the iceberg. It will take at least 16 years of Democratic Party control of the White House to repair the damage wrought by the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton cabal in the past 8. I believe the best chance of its happening is a Clinton / Obama ticket. If Barak were to serve as a loyal, proactive VP for eight years, the chances are very good that he will be our first African American president in 2016 when the U.S. and the world will truly need a 21st Century Abraham Lincoln. He will be nearly a decade younger than than Hillary is now. I listen to him and watch him and I am exhilarated and inspired, but what do I really know of him. I know that Hillary is a woman who has fought all her life through battles far greater than Obama’s, and is still standing tall, confident, and filled with energy that makes most men her age look like retirees.

A small present for those thinking of IT: Winter’s coming, And I’m not ready. Oh, damn! What to do? Loll in the lagging days of Summer, Lapping up strong sun and mellow moods. Roam through Fall’s soft streams of light. Collecting aires, and storing memories, For those cold and frosty nights. Jenny C, September, 1984 Marin County, California

OBAMA or CLINTON? This has certainly been an interesting political year. Who would have guessed, even just a year or two ago, that we would have two strong minority candidates running for president – a black man and a woman. But in a time when our country is facing economic concerns, a costly war in Iraq, and other troubling issues, we need to look beyond the historic significance of either candidacy and make the right choice based solely on record. It’s a mistake to wait and hear what they’re going to do about the issues we care about. The fact is the candidates are going to say what it is we want to hear. They need and want votes, and to secure their objective they first have to be pleasing to the ears. I have come to understand the excitement surrounding Barak Obama’s candidacy. He’s a fresh and stirring figure to the young voter and the media. Perhaps the baby-boomers see in him a spark and hope of the past. But for the older – and mostly male – politicians rallying around him, he probably represents the candidate they can most likely manipulate and expect payback from. Although, Obama has proven himself to be an inspirational figure, his record is limited, with his voting record primarily following along party lines. It isn’t fair to make assumptions based on the people Obama associates with, but it is troubling when the list of controversial figures keeps growing. You can expect some missteps and exaggerations, but when a campaign lingers on long enough, as this ones has, the essence of a candidate does reveal itself, and Obama’s words about frustrated people clinging to religion and guns, makes one, at the very least, scratch ones head and wonder whether he is even a man of faith. Obama emerges as an unknown quantity, with the only certainty that he will be beholden to the old guard for getting him to the White House. What can be said about Hillary Clinton? She has a proven record of standing up for ordinary citizens. When Bill Clinton first became President of the United States, it was Hillary Clinton who took on the tough issue of healthcare. Political analysts have since labeled it a debacle. The truth of the matter is that her first political undertaking was doomed due to the Republican controlled congress. What should be significant to all Americans is the choice of issues she selected to tackle. She was ahead of her time, pressing upon the need to take on the healthcare crisis long before it became rhetoric on every presidential campaign. The years have passed, and she has become a smarter, more capable politician, which is probably why the establishment is fighting against her. She will fight for the benefit of all Americans. Getting things done in Washington requires negotiating skills and compromise, without being beholden to the old guard. Her connections and experience will serve her well to reverse the mess left behind by President Bush. She’ll have the best adviser by her side - Former President Bill Clinton. Despite the critics, Bill Clinton is an assist to Hillary Clinton. He was a president that made life better for all Americans and who left the White House with a surplus in the treasury. This political year has turned into a huge mess. We had the most qualified candidate in Hillary Clinton, and now we face jeopardizing the presidency in November. This was not the appropriate year to experiment with a novice candidate. I sincerely hope Pennsylvania gets it right and hands her a decisive victory tomorrow.

I’m not sure that the Dems need the Repubs to make them look like elitists. The ladies complain that the Repubs historically assassinate the Dems with the elitist charge, but the Dems do a pretty good job all by themselves. As George Will recently wrote: “When a supporter told Adlai Stevenson, the losing Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, that thinking people supported him, Stevenson said, ‘Yes, but I need to win a majority.’ When another supporter told Stevenson, .You educated the people through your campaign,’ Stevenson replied, ‘But a lot of people flunked the course.’” A touch of the elite, all by himself…no? Perhaps the greatest recent act was performed by Sen. John F. Kerry, who, twelve days before the 2004 election, decided he needed to go hunting, dressed himself up in camo, strolled into an outfitter, and asked: “Can I get me a hunting license here?” Uh huh….that’s exactly how most people believed Mr. Kerry speaks every day. Or was simply a matter of the elite Mr. Kerry trying to “get down” to the level of the “common folk”? The “common folk” saw right through him.

I, too, agree with Whoopi . As a veteran school teacher of 22 years, I have seen just about everything across the board. We are all elitists. This country has been so blessed to be able to say what we feel, eat what we want, go where we want to go, sleep where we want to sleep, etc. and I applaud Mr. Obama for entering the race of a lifetime. I am disappointed in the elitist Republicans, too. I am voting for Obama , mainly because of what Dr. Klein said here in his blog to you, too. We have been taxed out the wazoo with the Republicans and what difference is it going to make anyway. I say, give Mr. Obama a chance. He is the man of the hour. Go Mr. Obama.. You can beat them all at their own game. I am praying for you.

We may not like it but there is not a candidate for president that is not an elitist. We are no longer electing Abraham Lincolns for president as the ordinary man can not afford to run. So as I see it if I feel all of the candidates are elitists, why not elect Obama.

ruth… get your facts straight. your comment: “it was Hillary Clinton who took on the tough issue of healthcare. Political analysts have since labeled it a debacle. The truth of the matter is that her first political undertaking was doomed due to the Republican controlled congress.” is revisionist history, to say the least. when hillary bungled and set back the chance of anyone passing legislation on universal health care for decades, the dems were in control of BOTH the senate and the congress. the truth of the matter is she worked behind closed doors, would not deign to consider any suggestions to ‘her’ plan, alienated both her party and the republicans. if she could not pass legislation with her party in the majority… when can she pass it? check out her senatorial record… what has she accomplished, of merit that is. read camille paglias take on clinton: Camille Paglia is a professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts (Philadelphia). Why women shouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton By Camille Paglia Last Updated: 9:04am BST 21/04/2008 Is Hillary Clinton the saviour of feminism? Or its albatross, dragging feminism backwards under a weary weight of old-guard victimology and male-bashing? # Hillary Clinton’s family home reflects Democrat divide # Toby Harnden: Democratic activists lashed by Clinton # Janet Daley: Can Barack Obama survive his remarks? The scrum is on! Feminist grand panjandrums like Gloria Steinem have leapt back into the arena, while younger women have seized the feminist banner to proclaim Hillary the messianic Wonder Woman, destined to smash the glass ceiling of the presidency. All women, on pain of excommunication from the feminist claque, must now support Hillary. Never mind her spotty record or her naked political expediency. Any woman with the temerity to endorse Barack Obama (as I do) is condemned as a “traitor” to her sex. “Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life,” trumpeted Steinem earlier this year in an article promoting Hillary in the New York Times. Barriers of race, class or economics are waved away as mere frippery. Hillary Clinton among the women of Scranton: Why women shouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton Back to her roots: Hillary Clinton among the women of Scranton As a resident of Philadelphia, I am currently under siege by the firestorm of political adverts heading toward Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary, which Hillary has long been expected to win. She has roots in this state: her grandfather was a Welshman who settled in the coal-mining city of Scranton, which remains conservative and working-class. Women there are tough and blunt, with few illusions about life. Hillary’s voter base consists of middle-aged to elderly white women who identify with her caustic, stubborn, bulldog resilience. Humiliated and upstaged by her philandering husband, Hillary is the champion of an army of women who were stymied, betrayed or outmanoeuvred by men. Over the past year, whenever her cowed male opponents mildly rebutted Hillary in debate, her campaign jumped into über-feminist mode: male bullies, they screeched, “ganging up” on a helpless damsel. Losing ground with other core groups - notably her own cohort of upper-middle-class, baby-boom career woman - Hillary played the gender card to the max. When polling showed she had seemed too harsh to the caucus-goers of Iowa, she rolled out teary eyes for New Hampshire, which handed her a primary victory. Hillary will scratch, claw, and morph through every gender trick if it rakes in votes. This symbol of raw female ambition has never comfortably fitted into a conventional sex role. As the first child of a hard-working and authoritarian father, Hillary absorbed his willfulness, competitive drive and suspicion. Excelling academically, Hillary felt ill at ease with the feminine persona so deftly deployed by pretty, popular girls in that era. Frumpy, stumpy and myopic, she identified with the new idolatry of shiny careerism promulgated by the second-wave feminism of the late 1960s, when she emerged from posh Wellesley College. US presidential election 2008 Though she would specialise in women’s and children’s issues, Hillary’s public statements have often betrayed an ambivalence about women who chose a non-feminist path. “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies,” she sneered during Bill’s 1992 presidential campaign. Then, defending her husband against the claims of a 12-year affair by Gennifer Flowers, Hillary snapped: “I’m not sittin’ here like some little woman, standing by my man like Tammy Wynette” - a sally that boomeranged when Hillary had to make an abject apology. The irony is that Hillary had offended the very group of stoical, put-upon, working-class women who are now proving to be her staunchest supporters. advertisement Whatever her official feminist credo, Hillary’s public career has glaringly been a subset to her husband’s success. Despite her reputation for brilliance, she failed the Washington, DC bar exam. Thus her migration to Little Rock was not simply a selfless drama for love; she was fleeing the capital where she had hoped to make her mark. In Little Rock, every role that Hillary played was obtained via her husband’s influence - from her position at the Rose Law Firm to her seat on the board of Wal-Mart to her advocacy for public education reform. In a pattern that would continue after Bill became president, Hillary would draw attention by expressing public “concern” for a problem, without ever being able to organise a programme for reform. Hillary has always been a policy wonk, a functionary attuned to bureaucratic process, but she has never shown executive ability, which makes her quest for the presidency problematic. Hillary’s disastrous botching of national healthcare reform in 1993 (a project to which her husband rashly appointed her) will live in infamy. Obama may also have limited executive experience, but he has no comparable stain on his record. The argument, therefore, that Hillary’s candidacy marks the zenith of modern feminism is specious. Feminism is not well served by her surrogates’ constant tactic of attributing all opposition to her as a function of entrenched sexism. Well into her second term as a US Senator, Hillary lacks a single example of major legislative achievement. Her career has consisted of fundraising, meet-and-greets and speeches around the world expressing support for women’s rights. Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton is aiming to become the first female president of the United States What feminist supporters have recently denounced as troglodytic misogyny in media portrayals of Hillary has in fact been a function of her own strange sexual accommodations and ambiguities. Yes, she may surround herself with luscious, multicultural babes (such as her minder, Huma Abedin, or her now sacked aide, Patty Solis Doyle), but Hillary, despite the rumours, is no lesbian. She’s a crucifix-wearing, Methodist do-gooder who confidently thinks she’s God’s agent. There’s no room for random eroticism in her calendar. Genuinely disturbing are the caricatures of Hillary (called “Hitlery” or “the Hildebeast” on the web) that rarely accrue to male candidates: she’s portrayed as a hectoring nag, a witch on a broomstick, or a castrating bitch. But if such images were truly generated by simple fear of female power, we would expect to find them around other women politicians too, such as the current female Speaker of the House. No, Hillary was demonised by the American electorate long before she sought elective office. It is Bill Clinton who is responsible for the tainted sexual aura around his wife. Furthermore, Hillary’s mythomania and her chameleon-like daily alterations of persona and voice are unsettling. (Even Hillary’s eye colour is fake: she wears blue contact lenses.) No male candidate enjoys Hillary’s options as a woman to tailor her costume to the audience. Hillary’s recent remarks about politics as a “boys’ club” resistant to uppity women was sheer demagoguery. By progressing farther than any woman presidential candidate, she has become a role model for future aspirants. But by attaching herself so blatantly to anti-male rhetoric - particularly in view of her debt to her husband - she is espousing a retrograde brand of feminism no longer applicable to the US. If Hillary loses, batten the hatches against a mass resurrection of paranoid, paleo-feminist martyrs, counting their wounds and wailing at the blood-red moon.